Search

Objective Foraminoplasty is an important step in transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD). A trephine is widely used in foraminoplasty. However, foraminoplasty using a trephine alone sometimes fails to remove the resected bone, resulting in the bone remaining in the foramen or spinal canal, which can potentially cause neurological irritation or injury. The objective of this study is to introduce a self‐designed tool, referred to as an anchoring drill, for use with a trephine in foraminoplasty in TELD and to evaluate its advantages. Methods A retrospective review was performed to identify patients who underwent L4–5 TELD between January 2019 to January 2022. Foraminoplasty was performed in all patients. Depending on whether the anchoring drill was used or not, patients were divided into two groups. Surgery‐related parameters and complications were reviewed. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores were also assessed for all patients. SPSS statistical software was used for statistical calculation. Results A total of 100 patients were included (55 in the anchoring drill group and 45 in the trephine group). The incidence of residual bone fragments after foraminoplasty of the anchoring drill group was 9.09%, which was lower than that of the trephine group, at 33.33% (p

Abstract Background Through bioinformatics analysis to identify the hub genes of Intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD) associated with basement membranes (BMs) and find out the potential molecular targets and drugs for BMs-related annulus fibrosus (AF) degeneration based on bioinformatic analysis and molecular approach. Methods Intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD) related targets were obtained from GeneCards, DisGenet and OMIM databases. BMs related genes were obtained from Basement membraneBASE database. The intersection targets were identified and subjected to protein-to-protein interaction (PPI) construction via STRING. Hub genes were identified and conducted Gene ontology (GO) and pathway enrichment analysis through MCODE and Clue GO in Cytospace respectively. DSigDB database was retrieved to predict therapeutic drugs and molecular docking was performed through PyMOL, AutoDock 1.5.6 to verify the binding energy between the drug and the different expressed hub genes. Finally, GSE70362 from GEO database was obtained to verify the different expression and correlation of each hub gene for AF degeneration. Results We identified 41 intersection genes between 3 disease targets databases and Basement membraneBASE database. PPI network revealed 25 hub genes and they were mainly enriched in GO terms relating to glycosaminoglycan catabolic process, the TGF-β signaling pathway. 4 core targets were found to be significant via comparison of microarray samples and they showed strong correlation. The molecular docking results showed that the core targets have strong binding energy with predicting drugs including chitosamine and retinoic acid. Conclusions In this study, we identified hub genes, pathways, potential targets, and drugs for treatment in BMs-related AF degeneration and IVDD.

Background Lateral displacement of cage is a rarely seen complication of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). To the best of our knowledge, this complication has always been revised with posterior open surgery. However, open surgery often associates with large trauma and long period of recovery. Case Presentation In the case presented, a 64‐year‐old male patient with lateral displacement of cage which consequently caused neurological symptoms after OLIF, was reported and surgically revised with an endoscopic resection and decompression technique. The surgery was performed through a posterolateral approach which was similar to transforaminal approach, with estimated blood loss of 45mL and whole operation time of 70 min. Neurological symptoms were disappeared after operation immediately and the patient was discharged 2 days later. He reported no symptoms other than mild weakness of the lower back at the last follow‐up of 12 months. Conclusion Endoscopic decompression technique may be an effective alternative to surgically treat lateral displacement of cage after OLIF with advantages of minimal invasion and quick recovery.

Objects Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has gained increasing popularity recently. However, complications resulting from intraoperative retraction of psoas major (PM) sometimes occur. The aim of this study is to evaluate the degree of PM swelling by developing a scoring system called the Psoas Major Swelling Grade (PMSG), and to investigate the correlation between the PMSG and clinical outcomes after OLIF. Methods Patients who underwent L4‐5 OLIF at our hospital from May 2019 to May 2021 were reviewed and all data were recorded. The extent of postoperative PM swelling was determined by calculating the percentage of change in the PM area before and after surgery on MRI and divided into three grades subsequently. Swelling within the range of 0% to 25% was defined as grade I, 25%–50% was grade II, and more than 50% was grade III. All patients were grouped into the new grade system and followed up for at least 1 year, during which the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were recorded. Categorical data were analyzed using chi‐square and Fisher's exact tests, while continuous variables were assessed with one‐way ANOVA and paired t‐tests. Results Eighty‐nine consecutive patients were enrolled in this study, with a mean follow‐up duration of 16.9 months. The proportion of female patients in the PMSG I, II, and III groups was 57.1%, 58.3%, and 84.1%, respectively (p = 0.024). Furthermore, the total complication rate was 43.2% in the PMSG III group, significantly higher than 9.5% and 20.8% in the PMSG I and II groups (p = 0.012). The incidence of thigh paraesthesia was also considerably higher in the PMSG III group at 34.1% (p = 0.015), compared to 9.5% and 8.3% in the PMSG I and II groups. Among the patients, 12.4% exhibited a teardrop‐shaped PM, with the majority (90.9%) belonging to the PMSG III group (p = 0.012). Additionally, the PMSG III group demonstrated a higher estimated blood loss (p = 0.007) and significantly worse clinical scores at the 1‐week follow‐up assessment (p

Background Cage retropulsion after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a common complication that is more frequently detected in the early postoperative period. Revision in the early stages is relatively less difficult in symptomatic cases. However, cage retropulsion is quite rare for patients with intervertebral osseous fusion in the long term after TLIF, and there are no relevant reports related to the revision plan. Case presentation Here, we report a case of a patient who underwent L4‐S1 TLIF at another hospital 4 years ago, accompanied by recurrent pain and discomfort of the left lower limb after the operation. Due to recent condition aggravation, it was considered to be caused by compression of the nerve root due to cage retropulsion. Nerve root sealing and endoscopy surgery were performed on the operative segment. It was found that cage retropulsion at the L4/5 level was a suspicious focus according to careful analysis of the clinical manifestations of the patient. Selective block of the nerve root on the level resulted in relief of the patient's original symptoms. After the posterior edge of the cage was exposed under the endoscope through an intervertebral foramen approach, the posterior edge of the cage protruding into the spinal canal was removed by high‐speed burr grinding, working casing reduction and other methods. Postoperative symptoms of pain in the low back and lower limb were relieved completely. Conclusions It is feasible to use the power system to remove the retrograde cage under the endoscope through the intervertebral foramen approach for the revision of symptomatic polyether ether ketone (PEEK) cage retropulsion in the long term after TLIF.

Objective To investigate the effect of the in situ screw implantation region and angle on the stability of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) from a biomechanical perspective. Methods A validated L2‐4 finite element (FE) model was modified for simulation. The L3‐4 fused segment undergoing LLIF surgery was modeled. The area between the superior and inferior edges and the anterior and posterior edges of the vertebral body (VB) is divided into four zones by three parallel lines in coronal and horizontal planes. In situ screw implantation methods with different angles based on the three parallel lines in coronal plane were applied in Models A, B, and C (A: parallel to inferior line; B: from inferior line to midline; C: from inferior line to superior line). In addition, four implantation methods with different regions based on the three parallel lines in horizontal plane were simulated as types 1–2, 1–3, 2–2, and 2–3 (1–2: from anterior line to midline; 1–3: from anterior line to posterior line; 2–2: parallel to midline; 2–3: from midline to posterior line). L3‐4 ROM, interbody cage stress, screw‐bone interface stress, and L4 superior endplate stress were tracked and calculated for comparisons among these models. Results The L3‐4 ROM of Models A, B, and C decreased with the extent ranging from 47.9% (flexion‐extension) to 62.4% (lateral bending) with no significant differences under any loading condition. Types 2–2 and 2–3 had 45% restriction, while types 1–2 and 1–3 had 51% restriction in ROM under flexion‐extension conditions. Under lateral bending, types 2–2 and 2–3 had 70.6% restriction, while types 1–2 and 1–3 had 61.2% restriction in ROM. Under axial rotation, types 2–2 and 2–3 had 65.2% restriction, while types 1–2 and 1–3 had 59.3% restriction in ROM. The stress of the cage in types 2–2 and 2–3 was approximately 20% lower than that in types 1–2 and 1–3 under all loading conditions in all models. The peak stresses at the screw‐bone interface in types 2–2 and 2–3 were much lower (approximately 35%) than those in types 1–2 and 1–3 under lateral bending, while no significant differences were observed under flexion‐extension and axial rotation. The peak stress on the L4 superior endplate was approximately 30 MPa and was not significantly different in all models under any loading condition. Conclusions Different regions of entry‐exit screws induced multiple screw trajectories and influenced the stability and mechanical responses. However, different implantation angles did not. Considering the difficulty of implantation, the ipsilateral‐contralateral trajectory in the lateral middle region of the VB can be optimal for in situ screw implantation in LLIF surgery.

BackgroundPostmenopausal osteoporosis (PMOP) is a common bone disorder. Existing study has confirmed the role of exosome in regulating RNA N6-methyladenosine (m6A) methylation as therapies in osteoporosis. However, it still stays unclear on the roles of m6A modulators derived from serum exosome in PMOP. A comprehensive evaluation on the roles of m6A modulators in the diagnostic biomarkers and subtype identification of PMOP on the basis of GSE56815 and GSE2208 datasets was carried out to investigate the molecular mechanisms of m6A modulators in PMOP.MethodsWe carried out a series of bioinformatics analyses including difference analysis to identify significant m6A modulators, m6A model construction of random forest, support vector machine and nomogram, m6A subtype consensus clustering, GO and KEGG enrichment analysis of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between different m6A patterns, principal component analysis, and single sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA) for evaluation of immune cell infiltration, experimental validation of significant m6A modulators by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), etc.ResultsIn the current study, we authenticated 7 significant m6A modulators via difference analysis between normal and PMOP patients from GSE56815 and GSE2208 datasets. In order to predict the risk of PMOP, we adopted random forest model to identify 7 diagnostic m6A modulators, including FTO, FMR1, YTHDC2, HNRNPC, RBM15, RBM15B and WTAP. Then we selected the 7 diagnostic m6A modulators to construct a nomogram model, which could provide benefit with patients according to our subsequent decision curve analysis. We classified PMOP patients into 2 m6A subtypes (clusterA and clusterB) on the basis of the significant m6A modulators via a consensus clustering approach. In addition, principal component analysis was utilized to evaluate the m6A score of each sample for quantification of the m6A subgroups. The m6A scores of patients in clusterB were higher than those of patients in clusterA. Moreover, we observed that the patients in clusterA had close correlation with immature B cell and gamma delta T cell immunity while clusterB was linked to monocyte, neutrophil, CD56dim natural killer cell, and regulatory T cell immunity, which has close connection with osteoclast differentiation. Notably, m6A modulators detected by RT-qPCR showed generally consistent expression levels with the bioinformatics results.ConclusionIn general, m6A modulators exert integral function in the pathological process of PMOP. Our study of m6A patterns may provide diagnostic biomarkers and immunotherapeutic strategies for future PMOP treatment.